Public Document Pack

SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL House , LA9 4UQ www.southlakeland.gov.uk

Tuesday, 4 June 2019

Dear Sir/Madam

Planning Committee - Thursday, 6 June 2019

I am now able to enclose, for consideration at the above-mentioned meeting, Page Nos. the following documents.

6 Planning Application No. SL/2018/0925 - Kendal Flood Risk 3 - 10 Management Scheme, Kendal, Natland, Skelsmergh and Scalthwaiterigg, Helsington To consider the update report on the Kendal Flood Risk Management Scheme Update Report.

(Included for Members of the Committee Part II Appendix which sets out the legal position with regards to the matter.

Note – In accordance with Section 100B(2) of the Local Government Act 1972, copies of this report are excluded from inspection by members of the public as the report contains information as described in Schedule 12A of the Act, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006, as follows:-

- Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings. (Paragraph 5))

David Sykes Director of Strategy, Innovation and Resources (Interim Monitoring Officer)

For all enquiries, please contact:- Committee Administrator: Committee Services Telephone: 01539 733333 e-mail: [email protected]

This page is intentionally left blank Item No.6

Summary of Representations received at 21.03.19 Planning Committee in relation to Planning Application No. SL/2018/0925 - Kendal Flood Risk Management Scheme - Kendal, Natland, Skelsmergh and Scalthwaiterigg, Helsington.

Tim Farron, Member of Parliament for Westmorland and Lonsdale addressed the Committee. He stated that Members of Parliament typically remained neutral with regard to planning matters. However, he felt it was important on this occasion to speak out in order to win funding to deliver the Flood Risk Management Scheme, which would offer protection and peace of mind to those who had been affected by flooding. He highlighted that the plans had taken three years to develop and informed Members that he still recalled his experiences helping residents through flood events over the past 10 years. He stated that he could not and would not forget those who lost everything, who were left homeless with their lives on hold and that the impact on their mental health had left some people in a state of panic and unable to sleep. He stated that he could not have looked the community in the eye if he had not addressed the Committee today. Mr Farron went on to highlight that following negotiation the EA had reconsidered the number of trees which would be lost and he informed Members that many of the replacement trees would be semi-mature trees and not saplings. He addressed concerns regarding the impact of the proposals on the character of Kendal and he highlighted Keswick and Cockermouth as towns which had been enhanced by the installation of flood defences. Mr Farron went on to remind Members of the picture of devastation on Shap Road and Mintsfeet and the damage to the economy following floods in recent years. Mr Farron concluded his address by stating the need for the upland water flow to be addressed and that nothing could be guaranteed. However, the risk of flooding would be reduced and it was important to have confidence in the future. Mr Farron urged the Committee to do what was right and vote for the proposals.

Councillor Giles Archibald, Leader of the Council and Ward Member for Kendal Town, addressed the Committee. He informed Members that horrific images of the aftermath of flooding remained in his mind and explained that he had been actively involved in the Flood Action Group. He stated that the Kendal Flood Risk Management Scheme was a robust three stage plan which had attracted European Regional Development funding of £5,000,000. He highlighted the protection which would be afforded to Mintsfeet Industrial Estate and went on to the inform Members that as part of the scheme the EA had agreed to create a safe public walkway from Shap Road via the County Hall and beyond. Councillor Archibald explained that all three phases would be in jeopardy if Phase 1 was to be refused, that he was convinced the proposals were the best solution for Kendal and he assured Members that he would work hard to ensure Phases 2 and 3 were delivered. He went on to highlight his concern regarding climate change and greenhouse gasses and stated that the planting of six replacement trees for each tree lost would aid the absorption of greenhouse gasses. Councillor Archibald concluded his address by informing Members that he had spoken to residents in his Ward and stated that their anguish must be ended and he urged the Committee to approve the application.

Councillor Peter Thornton, Ward Member for Kendal Town, addressed the Committee. He explained that he was speaking as a Kendalian who had grown up by the . He highlighted the beauty of the river and the power it had provided, in years gone by, to the people of Kendal and how in contrast it could turn with unique savagery funnelled by the beautiful hills above Kendal. He explained that he had grown up with the sound of flood sirens and had watched the river breach its banks many times. Councillor Thornton went on to outline the 1972 flood alleviation scheme which had seen the river straightened and widened, walls built and trees cut down. He explained that the scheme had contained the river for 40 years, however, we were now more vulnerable than ever and recovery from flooding took years not days. He stated that it was possible to make homes more resilient to flooding but that there was also a need to do more and it was important to listen to and place trust in the Environment Agency. Councillor Thornton concluded his address by stating that this was the right scheme

1

Page 3 for Kendal and although it would have an impact, this would soften over time and he asked Members to approve the application.

Lorayne Wall addressed the Committee on behalf of Friends of the Lake District. She explained that Friends of the Lake District fully sympathised with those who had been affected by flooding and that they were neither ignorant nor unsympathetic to the impact of flooding. She stated that Kendal deserved better and that the proposal appeared to be a race to be seen to be doing something and to secure funding which was tied to an arbitrary deadline. She went on to inform Members that downstream measures had been brought forward rather than dealing with upstream measures first which was recognised good practice, despite the further risk of flooding and that there was a risk that the further phases may not go ahead. She stated that all phases were required in order to deliver all the benefits claimed but only phase 1 had been assessed, which was contrary to planning guidance which stated that ‘an application should not be considered in isolation if it was an integral part of a more substantial development and in such cases must be considered in the context of the whole development’. Ms Wall went on to state that the schemes could not be treated collectively when asserting the benefits and then presented as separate when assessing the impacts. She went on to highlight the concerns which had been raised by Historic that the scheme had not changed sufficiently to alter their initial response and that visuals provided by the EA remained inadequate. She stated it was of concern that the Officer’s report appeared to dismiss their concerns and that South Lakeland District Council’s review of the EA’s Landscape and Visual Impacts had concluded that some impacts were underestimated and cumulative sequential impacts were omitted. She went on to inform Members that many of those who supported the scheme believed it would protect them against another Storm Desmond. The EA had made it clear, even with all 3 phases, it would not. Climate change would mean more extreme events and the Officer’s report had failed to mention that some support for the scheme was subject to certainty regarding Phases 2 and 3. Ms Wall concluded her address by stating that Friends of the Lake District understood that deciding to turn down the application would be a difficult decision but there must be a desire to do what was best in the long term and she urged Members to refuse the application.

Mr Martin Ainscough, Chairman of Trustees of Lakeland Arts, addressed the Committee. He explained that Lakeland Arts were the custodians of the Grade 1 listed Abbot Hall and owners of a group of listed buildings in the Kirkland area of Kendal and that Abbot Hall had suffered badly during the floods of December 2015 and sustained damages of over £1.5 million. He stated that the Trustees were aware of the impact of flooding on people’s lives. Mr Ainscough went on to inform Members that the Trustees had negotiated, with the EA, the removal of the walls which had initially been proposed to be directly in front of Abbot Hall. However, it had been noted by the Trustees that the application stated that as an alternative, the Listed Buildings would be provided with improved resilience. However, the Trustees had received no details of this. He informed Members that the proposed £9,000,000 redevelopment of Abbot Hall incorporated improved resilience. Mr Ainscough explained that he was worried that the scheme may make flooding rather worse and he went on to outline the substantial harm which would be caused by the proposed walls and wholesale removal of trees on the other side of the river. He informed Members that the Officer’s report did state that the residual impact was still considered to be harmful to the conservation area. Mr Ainscough went on to inform Members that: Phase 1 offered some protection to just 278 properties and that the impact of ground water flooding had not been considered; Phase 1 offered just 1 in 20 year event protection; and that many thought it could offer protection from events such as Storm Desmond a 1 in 200 year event. Mr Ainscough concluded his address by informing Members that English Heritage stated that the proposals would have a permanently harmful impact on the town’s cherished river environment, that there was no clear or convincing justification for the destructive scheme and the Trustees of Lakeland Arts urged Members to look again at the proposals, to look at spending the money to increase the resilience of homes and business and not to be rushed into a decision by short term funding promises.

2

Page 4

Kate Willshaw, a local resident, addressed the Committee. She explained that the EA’s figures stated that the Phase 1 flood defences would prevent direct flooding for 170 dwellings and 227 businesses. Storm Desmond had flooded 2150 properties and Phase 1 would protect less than 19% of those who were flooded. In addition Phase 1 would raise the flood risk for a number of properties and the figure provided was unclear and did not instil confidence. She went on to highlight paragraph 543 of the committee report which stated that there was no certainty that all three phases of the scheme would ever be completed. Ms Willshaw stated that the flood defences would not protect most of the people who had been flooded and that there had been misinformation. People had been hoodwinked into thinking that the proposed flood defences were the solution to what happened to them in 2015 and it had been said that Kendal needed the flood defences to improve the mental health of the people who had been flooded. She informed Members that there were other cheaper and far more effective flood resistance and resilience measures the EA could use to protect properties. Ms Willshaw informed Members that Cockermouth had been flooded three times since the installation of the flood defences. She explained that the flood wall along Aynam Road would trap exhaust fumes and went on to state that the defences would cause irreparable damage through the loss of trees, riverside views and access. She concluded her address by stating that the consequences of the scheme were too great a price to pay for such a low level of protection particularly when other options were available. Ms Willshaw urged the Members to refuse the application.

Mr Baynham-Hughes addressed the Committee in objection to the proposals. He stated that the Council had recently declared a climate emergency, which was an acknowledgement that extreme events, the scale of Storm Desmond, were likely to become more common and even worse. He went on inform Members that emotional pleas would be made in favour of the application and he agreed that people should not be subject to the misery and disruption of an event like Storm Desmond, however, he did not believe that building walls through the town was the answer and it was not a matter of if hard defences would fail but when they would fail. He highlighted the failed flood defences in Appleby, Carlisle, Cockermouth and Keswick and informed Members that the solution to the failures had been to build more and higher defences, which in turn had been overwhelmed by subsequent events. Mr Baynham-Hughes stated that the proposed flood defence scheme was not a sustainable solution and he voiced concerns regarding the impact on the mental health of those previously affected, if the scheme did fail. He went on to inform Members that the only viable solution was to live with the floodwater as our forebears had and to make homes more resistant to the ingress of flood water and more resilient if it did enter and that a far greater return on investment would be achieved by helping people to protect their homes. Mr Baynham-Hughes outlined that the Phase 1 plans only offered protection against a 5% or 1 in 20 year event and that Storm Desmond was a 0.5% or 1 in 200 year event and stated that Phase 1 increased the flood risk to a number of properties which was contrary to national planning policy and the adopted policy of the Council. He went to explain that he could understand why the EA had not identified the ‘at risk’ properties and hoped that the EA were putting in place measures to make the properties more resistant and resilient to flooding. Mr Baynham-Hughes stated that the justification put forward was that the overall flood risk would be reduced by the completion of Phases 2 and 3 and would offer 1% protection and this created a problem, as the Officer’s report stated that there was no certainty that the later phases would go ahead. Mr Baynham- Hughes concluded his address by urging the Committee to reject the application or to defer the decision to allow the environmental and cultural heritage impacts to be correctly addressed.

3

Page 5 Jennifer Perry addressed the Committee in objection to the proposals. She began her address by highlighting that the EA’s figure for the number of properties affected by Storm Desmond was 2,150 but the figure had not been broken down to provide further details. She stated that the EA had focused on river flooding and there was no real assessment of surface and groundwater flooding. Ms Perry stated that the EA had ‘put all of its expensive eggs in one basket’ and that the proposals were flawed and misleading. In addition, in the most recent edition of Kendal Town Council’s newsletter there had been visuals which showed the proposed flood defence walls. However, there was no indication of the trees to be felled. She highlighted the importance of Kendal as a national asset and asked who in their right mind would support felling 500 trees to build walls? Ms Perry went on to state that the visuals should not be believed, it was important to learn from past experience and it was vital to protect Kendal’s economy.

James Anderson addressed the Committee on behalf of Kent (Westmorland) Angling Association. He informed Members that the association had been established in 1897 and stated that their concerns related to conservation and wildlife. He went on to highlight the river’s cultural importance and its conservation designations as a Site of Special Scientific Interest and a Special Area of Conservation. Mr Anderson went on to outline the importance of the Atlantic salmon and our duty to save it. He stated that under Environmental Impact Assessment regulations, projects should not be ‘salami sliced’ and that surely the three phases of the scheme were one project. He highlighted the importance of riverbank trees which provide shade to fish and stated that there was a need to plant more trees. Mr Anderson went on to outline the proposals at Kentrigg which would involve laying thousands of tons of concrete and he explained that fish hated tunnels or closed culverts and there was a risk of severing ancestral spawning grounds. He informed Members that South Lakeland District Council’s (SLDC’s) polices CS 8.1 and CS 8.4 stated that we must protect species and their habitats and he went on to explain that the association were acutely aware of the devastating impact of flooding as members, friends and families had been flooded. He concluded his address by asking the Committee to protect Kendal’s iconic species and river landscape.

Miss Meakin addressed the Committee in objection to the proposals. Ordnance Survey maps were displayed throughout her address. Miss Meakin explained that she had studied old maps to try to understand what had changed. She had looked back to the 1970’s and studied the changes made by the river authority and she stated that there had been no trouble until 2015. Miss Meakin informed Members that she had been studying housing development in the areas at the bottom of hills and she highlighted how much Kendal had grown. She went on highlight the issue related to run off from hard standings and outlined a scheme which had been introduced in Burnley which was a drainage channel with fins which slowed the flow of water down by throwing it sideways.

Sue Kennedy addressed the Committee in objection to the proposals. She informed Members that she had lived and worked in Kendal for over 40 years and was still a regular visitor to the town, with family and friends in the area. She cared deeply for the town and would like to see it adequately protected but had major concerns about the current plans, particularly if Phase 1 went ahead without Phases 2 and 3 being guaranteed. Ms Kennedy explained that her address would focus on one area, Aynam Road and she asked if it would be technically possible to deliver on the mitigation promises made. Ms Kennedy stated that she was concerned about the destruction of so many mature trees and the impact on the wild habitat. She acknowledged that the world was changing and that life moved on, however replacing a natural riverbank with a concrete wall, which would obliterate one of the best views of the tree lined river, would be to the detriment of this historical market town and a loss for future generations. Ms Kennedy went on to state that she had studied the plans and spoken to the EA and she was of the opinion that much of the buy-in had been gained by false or implied promises which included the presentations of photographs and stories from Storm Desmond, when the new defences would not protect Kendal against a storm of that magnitude; the

4

Page 6 publication of plans of the glass wall fronting the Waterside Café and the subsequent revision of the plans, due to the expense of the glass panels; and the misleading artist impressions of the green, tree lined riverbank at the South end of Aynam Road. Ms Kennedy concluded her address by asking the Committee to base their final decision on actual facts.

Jenny Wroe addressed the Committee on behalf of a number of residents from the Aynam Road area. She informed Members that all those she was representing had been directly affected by flooding. However, despite the damage to property and physical and mental health, they were all strongly opposed to the Phase 1 flood defences. Ms Wroe stated that the flood damage caused by Storm Desmond was from ground water and not river water. She informed Members that the proposal was to channel the river water to flow more quickly which would reduce the risk of flooding at Sandylands. The proposed wall would therefore be necessary to stop the river bursting its banks at Aynam Road. Ms Wroe stated that Aynam Road was the sacrificial lamb to the Sandylands area of town and that there was the potential for the wall to act as a dam during periods of high rainfall. She went on to highlight concerns regarding the hard edged aspects of the proposed engineering works which would ruin the feel and heart of the town. In addition the EA had made it clear that Phase 1 would not protect against a Storm Desmond type event and the residents felt it would be preferable to live with the risk rather than be faced with an ‘eye sore’ of a wall, day in and day out. Ms Wroe went on to state that no research had been conducted on the impact of the wall on noise and air quality and that the effectiveness of Phase 1 was reliant on separate works, within the Lake District National Park, which had not yet been funded, scoped or planning permission sought. She pointed out that if Phases 2 and 3 did not go ahead, Phase 1 would not work and the beauty of the town would have been ruined for nothing and that, in accordance with the EA’s best practice guidelines, the upstream measures should be implemented first. Ms Wroe concluded her address by stating that the proposed scheme was not fit for purpose and requested that the plans were fully reviewed.

Marie Cartwright addressed the Committee in objection to the proposals. She informed Members that those who had already spoken had covered much of her representation. She stated that she was a proud Kendalian who had lived on Aynam Road for 40 years and had enjoyed the beautiful view of Abbot Hall. She explained that she had been flooded four times, three of which had been caused by groundwater and that her main concern was drainage of surface water into the river and the installation of the proposed non-return valves. Mrs Cartwright concluded her address by explaining that she was worried that the proposed wall would stop surface water draining into the river and that during Storm Desmond she had observed standing water along Aynam Road and that spades had been used to remove the mud and debris, trapped between the railings, to allow the surface water to drain.

Mr Adrian Phillips, a resident of Aynam Road, addressed the Committee and explained that, having been informed by recent neighbourhood meetings, he was speaking impartially. He felt it was not possible to make a decision due to the incomplete nature of preparations and that regardless of the decision made, the process had to be logical, balanced and informed. Mr Phillips acknowledged that there were strong arguments for and against the proposals, however, the process needed to be complete and it was not. He went on to state that for the 99.9% of the time when the flood defences were not required, the defences would still have to be lived with and as admirable as the proposed public works, such as parks and cycle paths, were they were a side effect of the scheme. Mr Phillips informed Members that he was not convinced that there was a clear understanding of the practical impact of the scheme on residents and he requested that there should be a reasonable postponement to the decision to allow necessary studies and for consultation with residents to be concluded.

Sinead McCann addressed the Committee, in the absence of Gail Howarth and on behalf of the Flood Resilience Team. She informed the Committee that the Flood Resilience Team had been formed by the Burneside Resident’s Association and had 300 members. She

5

Page 7 went on to explain that the team had reviewed the information made available by the EA and had listened to the ‘for and against’ arguments from local residents and they were firmly in support of Phase 1. She explained that the over 60 possible solutions had been taken into account and that the EA had used technology and flood modelling and met with residents and local flood groups. Ms McCann went on to explain that the scale of the Phase 1 proposal was suitable for the impact of further flooding and that the future phases would offer protection to homes and businesses which had been repeatedly affected. The group understood that the phased order was due to financial constraints and the priority for the funding available. She stated that the Burneside Flood Resilience Team felt that visually the scheme worked and it was well balanced with the walls and glass sections. Ms McCann explained that Burneside would be part of the Phase 2 scheme and it was felt that this could not come soon enough, as Burneside properties flooded once or twice a year, every year. She went on to inform Members that Burneside was still suffering the effects of Storm Desmond, the village was still without a bridge and consequently residents were living in a divided community. Residents lived on high alert and when there was heavy rainfall they would sit night after night watching the river levels and preparing for breaches. In addition local fields would be pumped out to allow for increased catchment. Ms McCann concluded her address, on behalf of Burneside Flood Resilience Team, and stated that the once the three phases were completed the flood risk would be less and the upland storage would be better. The walls within the EA’s plans would not destroy lives but floodwaters would and she informed Members that Burneside Flood Resilience Team wholeheartedly supported the Phase 1 plans as proposed and that the local community were aware that the scheme would not offer protection against a storm Desmond-type event.

Maggie Mason addressed the Committee on behalf of the South Lakes Flood Action Partnership and explained that the partnership was an umbrella group for Flood Action Groups (FLAG) within the area and that she was also the Chair of North East Kendal’s FLAG. She informed Members that she had been involved in the Storm Desmond flood recovery work and, as a retired town planner, throughout the recovery period she had given consideration to why and how the flood had happened and if it would be likely to happen again. Mrs Mason stated that Phase 1 was before the District Council for a decision and funding was ready. She went on to highlight that there had been misinformation on social media regarding the appearance of the linear defences however, since then drawings and visualisations had become available. Mrs Mason outlined the different ways in which people moved through and experienced the town and she acknowledged that Phase 1 would involve change and that some people would gain and some would lose. In addition, those with an interest in heritage may think that the proposals were disastrous. Mrs Mason concluded her address by outlining the impacts, if the application was to be refused, and she urged Members to vote yes to the proposal.

Nick Edwards addressed the Committee and informed Members that he was a resident of Castle Crescent and he was representing the Castle Street Flood Action Group. He began his address by stating that he echoed Councillor Archibald’s sentiments and went on to explain that being flooded was hugely distressing and disrupting and that Storm Desmond had flooded every property on Castle Crescent and many on the surrounding streets. He outlined the emotional scars caused to himself and his wife by being displaced from their home and community for six months. He explained that for some neighbours the repair work had taken years to complete and stated that the impact on residents was appalling. Mr Edwards went on to explain that flood damage had extended to commercial premises and that the economic impact on businesses had been immeasurable. He informed Members that there was a fear in the community that if Phase 1 was not approved, effective flood defences would not be constructed. He went on to quote from paragraph 115 of the Officer’s report which stated that if Phase 1 was refused that the EA would be unlikely to progress further with Phases 2 and 3. Mr Edwards stated that he understood from the EA that the £56 million scheme was reliant on partnership funding and that the funds were available only for a limited period. He outlined the consultation process carried out by the EA throughout 2017 and 2018 and explained that the

6

Page 8 preferred option had been further revised in late 2018 and was the application presented to Members for consideration. Mr Edwards concluded his address by stating that the application was the most economically viable, technically feasible, environmentally sustainable and socially acceptable of all of the options considered. He stated that Members had the opportunity to have a positive impact on many lives and he asked Members to support the recommendation.

Sinead McCann addressed the Committee on behalf of the Benson and Sandes Flood Action Group and she explained the group covered a bowling club, a church and 20 homes, all of which flooded in December 2015. She informed Members that the group had worked closely with the EA and other Flood Action Groups and she outlined the ways in which flooding affected people and communities. Ms McCann informed Members that three neighbours had not returned to their homes after Storm Desmond, as they felt unable to face coming back. She highlighted that residents understood that they were likely to be flooded again and that they had installed resilience measures to aid a more speedy recovery process. She went on to outline that the proposed flood defences would stop properties from flooding, in an event less than Storm Desmond conditions, and that there was an expectation for the EA and the Local Authority to do what they could to protect homes, businesses and community buildings and to reduce the likelihood of flooding. Ms McCann highlighted that the proposed scheme would improve and enhance some areas of the town and there would be significant investment in the public realm of Kendal. She concluded her address by outlining the emotions she had experienced over the past three years whilst studying the proposed flood defence options and she implored Members to approve the application.

Barbara Tonge, a resident of Aynam Road, addressed the Committee and explained that she had experienced flooding and was speaking today as a person who loved the town and who was concerned about the wellbeing and welfare of businesses and facilities in the town. She explained that she was environmentally aware and that flood risk in the 21st Century was very different to that in the 1970’s. Mrs Tonge went on to inform Members that she had studied the 60 available options and had spoken to representatives of the EA. She explained that Phase 1 had to come first as Government and European funding could only be used for linear flood defences and that if the application was turned down, the funding would go elsewhere. She stated that it was important to be practical and asked for some assurance that Phases 2 and 3 would follow, as Phase 1 would not work on its own. Mrs Tonge concluded her address by outlining her own experience of Storm Desmond and highlighting that the residents of the Alms Houses on Aynam Road had been out of their homes for two and a half years and she stated that it was important to protect the town from flooding in the best way possible.

Mr David Evans addressed the Committee in support of the proposals and stated that today was the most important day in the history of SLDC’s Planning Committee and it was the opportunity to do the right thing and put right some previous mistakes. He outlined previous planning applications which had been granted without full consideration of the flooding risk and stated that some developers had taken the money and left the scene and that Kendal deserved better. Mr Evans went on to inform Members that the £3 million Stock Beck scheme had already failed twice and was not up to the task. He explained that many people, who were in opposition to the scheme, described the River Kent as the heart of Kendal and he stated that Kendal’s heart beat in the people of Kendal. Mr Evans concluded his address by stating that the work must be carried out and it was an opportunity to put things right and to demand a better future by approving the application.

Shirley Evans, County Councillor for Kendal Nether Division, addressed the Committee and explained that she had attended the EA’s consultation meetings with the residents of Aynam Road and that at the meetings she had seen the EA listen to concerns and to make every attempt to modify the plans to protect residents and businesses. Councillor Evans stated that she was totally convinced that the scheme would work and that it would protect homes and

7

Page 9 reduce the flood risk. She went on to highlight the loss, hardship and devastation which had been caused by Storm Desmond and stated that flood statistics provided numbers but did not convey the reality of the devastation. Councillor Evans highlighted the need to do everything possible to stop future flooding and stated that Officers had commended the scheme as one which offered significant public benefit, safe and secure homes and peace of mind. Councillor Evans concluded her address by urging Members to resolve to grant approval for the scheme.

Kendal Town Councillor Jonathan Cornthwaite addressed the Committee and explained that he was speaking in favour of the application as Councillor for Mintsfeet Ward and on behalf of the Mintsfeet flood action group and the newly formed Kendal Town Council Flood Relief Scheme Working Group. He stated that taking into account the numerous genuine concerns which had been raised regarding the impact on the town and the local communities, which would be caused by the planned engineering works and the impact and legacy of the finished plan, it was important to stipulate a requirement for the EA to work with interested parties. In addition it was important to achieve a balance between protection and enhancement and damage limitation and to ensure that any future development in the industrial north of Kendal would not adversely add to the water levels throughout Kendal or undermine any protection scheme. Councillor Cornthwaite concluded his address by asking Members to have trust and approve the scheme.

Mr Stewart Mounsey addressed the Committee on behalf of the Environment Agency. He explained that the EA were the Government’s national advisor, expert and delivery agent and they work to create better places for people and wildlife. Mr Mounsey expressed his thanks to all those who had contributed following Storm Desmond and went on to explain that 60 flood relief options had been considered. He acknowledged the comments and concerns made during the representations and informed Members that the EA’s proposals were made up of three schemes: Phase 1 – Kendal linear defences; Phase 2 – linear defences in the villages of Burneside, Staveley and Ings; and Phase 3 – upstream storage on the River Kent. Mr Mounsey went on to stress that the flood management scheme would not offer the level of protection required for a Storm Desmond event. However, he stated that it was hoped that the Phase 1 design had been improved and he informed Members that Phase 1 was a £16 million investment which would deliver protection for the direct risk of flooding in events up to a 1 in 20 year return period.

8

Page 10